Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41245537›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025

Surgical margins in breast conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast and clinical outcomes: a national audit with long term follow-up.

John Fr Robertson, D Mark Sibbering, Sikhuphukile G Ndebele Mahati, Ashu Gandhi, Sarah E Pinder, Karen Clements, Olive Kearins, Judith Bliss, Lucy Kilburn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

John Fr RobertsonRoyal Derby Hospital, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton Foundation Trust, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
D Mark SibberingRoyal Derby Hospital, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton Foundation Trust, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
Sikhuphukile G Ndebele MahatiDivision of Clinical Studies, The Institute of Cancer Research Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU), London, UK.
Ashu GandhiManchester University Hospitals, Manchester Breast Centre, Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Sarah E PinderGuy's Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Guy's & St Thomas' Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Karen ClementsPublic Health, Population Health and Evaluation, NHS England, London, UK.
Olive KearinsPrimary Care, Community, Vaccinations & Screening (PCVS), NHS England, London, UK.
Judith BlissDivision of Clinical Studies, The Institute of Cancer Research Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU), London, UK.
Lucy KilburnDivision of Clinical Studies, The Institute of Cancer Research Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU), London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Optimal surgical margin width in breast conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is not established. The United Kingdom (UK) Association of Breast Surgery (ABS) recommended a 1 mm margin, whereas a minimum of 2 mm has been recommended in the United States of America (USA). This paper uses precise histological margin width data from UK national datasets to understand the impact of surgical margins on time to recurrence (TTR). Methods: Patients were included if aged ≥45-years with a new diagnosis of DCIS alone, between 2003 and 2014, within the English National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening Programme. Primary treatment included BCS and a minimum histological excision margin width recorded. Exclusion criteria included: prior history of DCIS; prior history of invasive cancer or its diagnosis within 3-months of initial surgical treatment for DCIS. Data was extracted from NHS England National Disease Registration Service (NDRS), ABS and Sloane Project audits. Findings: 16,907 patients diagnosed with DCIS having definitive BCS surgery were identified between 2003 and 2014. TTR was found to be significantly shorter for patients with surgical margins <1 mm vs ≥ 1 mm (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1·32; 95% (confidence interval) CI:1·06-1·63; p = 0·012); <2 mm vs ≥ 2 mm (aHR = 1·19; 95% CI:1·05-1·35; p = 0·0062) and ≥1-<2 mm vs ≥ 2 mm (aHR = 1·18; 95% CI:1·01-1·38; p = 0·032). There was no evidence that increasing the surgical margin width beyond 2 mm significantly improved TTR (aHR = 0·96; 95% CI: 0·86-1·08; p = 0·52 for ≥5 mm vs ≥ 2-<5 mm). The rate of recurrence across 14 years following BCS + radiotherapy was 1·2% per annum, 2129 (13%) patients had a recurrence of which 78% were invasive breast cancers. Interpretation: Patients with DCIS with histological margins of <2 mm, adjusted for other clinical factors, have significantly worse TTR compared to margins ≥2 mm. These findings may inform optimum treatment of patients with DCIS. Funding: An ABS grant covered the cost of data extraction by NHS England and medical writing assistance. The latter was provided by Edge Health, supervised by the co-authors.

Indexed as

Breast cancerBreast conserving surgeryDuctal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)

Identifiers

PMID41245537
PMCPMC12615345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.